Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Heritability and polygenic predictionIn the EUR sample, the SNP-based heritability (h 2 SNP ) (that is, the proportion of variance in liability attributable to all measured SNPs)

Background:Applying the concept of burnout to medical students before residency is relatively recent. Its estimated prevalence varies significantly between studies. Our objective was to estimate the prevalence of burnout in medical students worldwide.Methods:We systematically searched Medline for English-language articles published between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2017. We selected all the original studies about the prevalence of burnout in medical students before residency, using validated questionnaires for burnout. Statistical analyses were conducted using the OpenMetaAnalyst software.Results:Prevalence of current burnout was extracted from 24 studies encompassing 17,431 medical students. Among them, 8060 suffered from burnout and we estimated the prevalence to be 44.2% [33.4%–55.0%]. The information about the prevalence of each subset of burnout dimensions was given in nine studies including 7588 students. Current prevalence was estimated to be 40.8% for ‘emotional exhaustion’ [32.8%–48.9%], 35.1% [27.2%–43.0%] for ‘depersonalization’ and 27.4% [20.5%–34.3%] for ‘personal accomplishment’. There is no significant gender difference in burnout. The prevalence of burnout is slightly different across countries with a higher prevalence in Oceania and the Middle East than in other continents.Conclusions:The results of this meta-analysis suggest that one student out of two is suffering from burnout, even before residency. Again, our findings highlight the high level of distress in the medical population. These results should encourage the development of preventive strategies.

IMPORTANCE Detection, prognosis, and indicated interventions in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) are key components of preventive psychiatry. OBJECTIVE To provide a comprehensive, evidence-based systematic appraisal of the advancements and limitations of detection, prognosis, and interventions for CHR-P individuals and to formulate updated recommendations. EVIDENCE REVIEW Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Reviews, and Ovid/PsychINFO were searched for articles published from January 1, 2013, to June 30, 2019, to identify meta-analyses conducted in CHR-P individuals. MEDLINE was used to search the reference lists of retrieved articles. Data obtained from each article included first author, year of publication, topic investigated, type of publication, study design and number, sample size of CHR-P population and comparison group, type of comparison group, age and sex of CHR-P individuals, type of prognostic assessment, interventions, quality assessment (using AMSTAR [Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews]), and key findings with their effect sizes.FINDINGS In total, 42 meta-analyses published in the past 6 years and encompassing 81 outcomes were included. For the detection component, CHR-P individuals were young (mean [SD] age, 20.6 [3.2] years), were more frequently male (58%), and predominantly presented with attenuated psychotic symptoms lasting for more than 1 year before their presentation at specialized services. CHR-P individuals accumulated several sociodemographic risk factors compared with control participants. Substance use (33% tobacco use and 27% cannabis use), comorbid mental disorders (41% with depressive disorders and 15% with anxiety disorders), suicidal ideation (66%), and self-harm (49%) were also frequently seen in CHR-P individuals. CHR-P individuals showed impairments in work (Cohen d = 0.57) or educational functioning (Cohen d = 0.21), social functioning (Cohen d = 1.25), and quality of life (Cohen d = 1.75). Several neurobiological and neurocognitive alterations were confirmed in this study. For the prognosis component, the prognostic accuracy of CHR-P instruments was good, provided they were used in clinical samples. Overall, risk of psychosis was 22% at 3 years, and the risk was the highest in the brief and limited intermittent psychotic symptoms subgroup (38%). Baseline severity of attenuated psychotic (Cohen d = 0.35) and negative symptoms (Cohen d = 0.39) as well as low functioning (Cohen d = 0.29) were associated with an increased risk of psychosis. Controlling risk enrichment and implementing sequential risk assessments can optimize prognostic accuracy. For the intervention component, no robust evidence yet exists to favor any indicated intervention over another (including needs-based interventions and control conditions) for preventing psychosis or ameliorating any other outcome in CHR-P individuals. However, because the uncertainty of this evidence is high, needs-based and psychological interventions should still be offered. CONCL...